How good (optically) are focal reducers?

If your are going to buy an adapter like this, from my limit experience I would pick the Metabones ones.
I have the Metabones Canon FD > Fuji X and I have also been pleased with its performance.
Put it this way: Sigma make EF adapters principally to make their EF mount lenses compatible to other mounts. They do this by issuing firmware updates to lenses so that they confirm to one or more of the recent Canon EF lens reverse engineered firmware. Obviously any other EF mount lenses that work are a bonus. It is a very neat solution and does not require a lot of effort by Sigma. But it does not help as much with other EF mount lenses that have more obscure requirements.

Metabones and others who make their living by selling adapters have to try and make all EF mount lenses as firmware compatible as far as possible. One only has to check the Metabones firmware update briefs to see that Metabones have done the most hard yards towards full compatibility.

Others, mainly cheaper brands, have made a good subset swatch of compatibility but like Sigma have mainly covered the common, more recent, EF firmware types. If this suits our needs it is all that we need.

Metabones also went to a lot of trouble to secure the best optics for their focal reduction versions. Other quality brands also most probably have decent optics. The cheaper ones are probably not "dunces" but are probably a common subset bought it from one or more Chinese optics supplier. Which almost suggests that possibly Mitakon makes a set of optics for all generic builds to buy.
 
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
I have the M645 to L mount version, cost an arm and a leg, but I thought "limited edition".

Was an incorrect guess.

I have never closely checked the results. Must run some tests to refresh my memory.
Ok. That L adaptor is optically identical to the Sony E version. You can get a replacement Sony E mount if you like.

https://kipon.com/product/replaceab...ic-l-mount-for-focal-reducer-m645-s-e-l-0-7x/

I'd be very interested to see what you think of the baveyes adaptor in respect to sharpness ( and edge sharpness), CA and purple fringing. I tend to use lenses wide open and of course this is where you're likely to see optical issues.
I have a swag of Mamiya 645 lenses, have you any preference on which one I could use? My time is more at a premium but at least the spring weather has been very good. :)
Thanks Tom. I'm most interested in the M645 lenses that have the greatest potential as portrait lenses (with the Baveyes) such as 80/1.9N (this would be my first choice if you have it), 110/2.8N and 150/2.8A.

If you don't have any of those, maybe an 80/2.8N would be interesting as it has CA wide open so it might be interesting to see what happens with the baveyes. I also have 35/3.5N, 45/2.8N, 55/2.8N if you don't have any of the above.

Thanks again.
 
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
I have the M645 to L mount version, cost an arm and a leg, but I thought "limited edition".

Was an incorrect guess.

I have never closely checked the results. Must run some tests to refresh my memory.
Ok. That L adaptor is optically identical to the Sony E version. You can get a replacement Sony E mount if you like.

https://kipon.com/product/replaceab...ic-l-mount-for-focal-reducer-m645-s-e-l-0-7x/

I'd be very interested to see what you think of the baveyes adaptor in respect to sharpness ( and edge sharpness), CA and purple fringing. I tend to use lenses wide open and of course this is where you're likely to see optical issues.
I have a swag of Mamiya 645 lenses, have you any preference on which one I could use? My time is more at a premium but at least the spring weather has been very good. :)
Thanks Tom. I'm most interested in the M645 lenses that have the greatest potential as portrait lenses (with the Baveyes) such as 80/1.9N (this would be my first choice if you have it), 110/2.8N and 150/2.8A.

If you don't have any of those, maybe an 80/2.8N would be interesting as it has CA wide open so it might be interesting to see what happens with the baveyes. I also have 35/3.5N, 45/2.8N, 55/2.8N if you don't have any of the above.

Thanks again.
I have the majority of these lenses in one form or another. A son has borrowed a few of them to try on his new Fuji Medium Format. But I should be able to help - presently I suffer a bit from the heart is willing but the physical side of doing everything on my plate is a little overwhelming. I will do what I can. I definitely have "80's", a 110, and 35 but don't know if they are "N's".
 
Tom Caldwell wrote:
...
I have the majority of these lenses in one form or another. A son has borrowed a few of them to try on his new Fuji Medium Format. But I should be able to help - presently I suffer a bit from the heart is willing but the physical side of doing everything on my plate is a little overwhelming. I will do what I can. I definitely have "80's", a 110, and 35 but don't know if they are "N's".
The N versions can be optically different but in most cases are just updated coatings, so normally not a big difference.

If you can test/compare the 80/1.9 with the Baveyes and without (obviously a different field of view) and show some 100% crops that would be fantastic. The 80/1.9 misbehaves wide open (a bit of CA and purple fringing on high contrast edges) and it would be interesting to see what happens with the adapter.

Thanks again.
 
Tom Caldwell wrote:
...
I have the majority of these lenses in one form or another. A son has borrowed a few of them to try on his new Fuji Medium Format. But I should be able to help - presently I suffer a bit from the heart is willing but the physical side of doing everything on my plate is a little overwhelming. I will do what I can. I definitely have "80's", a 110, and 35 but don't know if they are "N's".
The N versions can be optically different but in most cases are just updated coatings, so normally not a big difference.

If you can test/compare the 80/1.9 with the Baveyes and without (obviously a different field of view) and show some 100% crops that would be fantastic. The 80/1.9 misbehaves wide open (a bit of CA and purple fringing on high contrast edges) and it would be interesting to see what happens with the adapter.

Thanks again.
Found my list of Mamiya 645 lenses:

Jeremy has my (good) 80/1.9; 110/2.8 and; 150/3.5 N 350kms away.

I have the 35/3.5; 55/2.8; 80/1.9 N badly hazed; 80/2.8; 145/4.0 Soft Focus; 150/2.8; 150/4.0 and; 300/5.6 with fungus on rear element. Enough to test the Kipon Bave-eyes. I have the S1 and S9 bodies. Will get there as soon as I can.
 
Tom Caldwell wrote:
...
I have the majority of these lenses in one form or another. A son has borrowed a few of them to try on his new Fuji Medium Format. But I should be able to help - presently I suffer a bit from the heart is willing but the physical side of doing everything on my plate is a little overwhelming. I will do what I can. I definitely have "80's", a 110, and 35 but don't know if they are "N's".
The N versions can be optically different but in most cases are just updated coatings, so normally not a big difference.

If you can test/compare the 80/1.9 with the Baveyes and without (obviously a different field of view) and show some 100% crops that would be fantastic. The 80/1.9 misbehaves wide open (a bit of CA and purple fringing on high contrast edges) and it would be interesting to see what happens with the adapter.

Thanks again.
Found my list of Mamiya 645 lenses:

Jeremy has my (good) 80/1.9; 110/2.8 and; 150/3.5 N 350kms away.

I have the 35/3.5; 55/2.8; 80/1.9 N badly hazed; 80/2.8; 145/4.0 Soft Focus; 150/2.8; 150/4.0 and; 300/5.6 with fungus on rear element. Enough to test the Kipon Bave-eyes. I have the S1 and S9 bodies. Will get there as soon as I can.
I have the 35, 55, and 80/2.8 out and handy I will see if I can get some images tomorrow.

[Edit] found some time to wander the yard - have some images from the 80 and 55 and will try and get some from the 35 tomorrow (you know .... that day that never comes :) )

Bear with me.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Last edited:
I wish a company would come out with a FF to FF focal reducer already.

It seems to me that there are so little disadvantages to focal reducer optics that any lens design which can afford the backfocal distance should be made modular to support it. This could include native targeted lenses with a macro tube style adapter for normal usage, or EF legacy lenses like the Laowa 200mm F2 for use with an EF adapter, with Sigma MC-11 style native support.

Compatibility with a focal reducer would then allows at least 2 different magnification levels for the same shooting lens. 0.80x would probably be usable for most primes, with some sacrifices made in the corners in open gate, and little in 16:9 etc.

Examples of full frame glass with adequate coverage for 0.80x image circle (ala digital medium format) are listed in this thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4545306

The downsides would be structural integrity for heavy lenses, additional bayonet weight and slight decentring according to adapter tolerance.

A more compromised argument could be made for teleconverters, but that's another (licencing) story...
 
Last edited:
I wish a company would come out with a FF to FF focal reducer already.

It seems to me that there are so little disadvantages to focal reducer optics that any lens design which can afford the backfocal distance should be made modular to support it. This could include native targeted lenses with a macro tube style adapter for normal usage, or EF legacy lenses like the Laowa 200mm F2 for use with an EF adapter, with Sigma MC-11 style native support.

Compatibility with a focal reducer would then allows at least 2 different magnification levels for the same shooting lens. 0.80x would probably be usable for most primes, with some sacrifices made in the corners in open gate, and little in 16:9 etc.

Examples of full frame glass with adequate coverage for 0.80x image circle (ala digital medium format) are listed in this thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4545306

The downsides would be structural integrity for heavy lenses, additional bayonet weight and slight decentring according to adapter tolerance.

A more compromised argument could be made for teleconverters, but that's another (licencing) story...
Well many lenses would have heavy vignetting.

Its true there are some lenses that cover the gfx sensor and might work, but optical improvements might not out weigh the corner smearing. Very few "full frame " lenses have large image circles.

You might be able to do a 0.9x adapter, but with little point and maybe high cost for not much gain.
 
I am quite puzzled by this. I think that there already is an EF to GFX adapter (by Viltrox?) that is a sort of reverse focal reduction adapter to place FF images on a larger sensor. I have not followed that market.

Then there is a whole series of (0.7x adapters for Mamiya 645 mount - by Kipon - expensive) to put the Mamiya medium format lens image circle on various new mirrorless mount systems. I have had a Kipon M645-L focal reduction adapter for some time.

Cost of an arm and a leg, but I did think at the time that it would be a limited market run.

But they are still available and they are still fairly expensive. A limited market I suppose.
 
Heavy vignetting and smearing for some use cases and combos, but where the faster aperture is desired not all. I say "usable" with some flexibilty in mind, in the sense of being another tool. In video the application is probably clearer. Some DOPs are also purposely interested in exploring smaller format lenses on larger sensors for different effects, so I see a market.

For users who have this in mind it's a much better value proposition than buying an MF body, given the pace of development in FF format.

As so few new DSLR lenses are released these days, it seems a stretch to say that ongoing market could support the use case for an FF reducer, but the Laowa lens planted the idea in my mind again >< Such a combination would be my deserted island lens, I think.

I dream of improved modularity for camera systems one day. Other bonuses come free for the ride, such as an additional focal length on aps-c sensors (~1.2x for aps-h equiv.) etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the EF to GFX adapters are exactly the proof of concept illustrated by the thread I linked to.

The price of previous MF to FF reducers paints a dim outlook for niche adapters indeed, but at any rate the backfocal length is different along with the reduction. I feel an 0.80x FF flange to FF reducer would be far less niche given the number of FF lenses out there to experiment with, not to mention the steady advancement of autofocus compatibility in adapters.

Following the MF Kipon thread keenly here just in case I have the fortune of one dropping into my lap for a rehousing project one day :)
 
Last edited:
Yes, the EF to GFX adapters are exactly the proof of concept illustrated by the thread I linked to.

The price of previous MF to FF reducers paints a dim outlook for niche adapters indeed, but at any rate the backfocal length is different along with the reduction. I feel an 0.80x FF flange to FF reducer would be far less niche given the number of FF lenses out there to experiment with, not to mention the steady advancement of autofocus compatibility in adapters.

Following the MF Kipon thread keenly here just in case I have the fortune of one dropping into my lap for a rehousing project one day :)
Well you can try it. I see the Metabones F-mount to Z-mount 0.71x speed booster doesn't have a back baffle:


There seem to also be some E-mount speed boosters without a baffle. So just try it.

Here an article with some experience trying this:

 
Great suggestions. However as you say a ~0.90x effective reduction with existing aps-c reducers does not seem worth it, especially with a crop on the sensor, unless it smooths the bokeh. The Lens Turbo II I used to own was unfortunately quite heavy too.

A new focal reducer really needs to be designed for an FF sensor.

Aps-c lenses on the other hand can be useful in aps-h crop if they are lighter weight than equivalents.
 
Last edited:
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
Yes.


They were certainly worth their salt and if you're offered one for cheap, why not?

But nowadays it makes no sense to spend $500 on a new Metabones.

Just buy a used FF body.
 
My experience has been disappointing, connecting Pentax K-mount manual lenses to M43. Anything outside dead centre was so soft as to be unusable. But then I did buy the cheapest I could find.
Could be the cheap adapter, but also could be field curvature. Field curvature that you barely notice for the base lens often is dramatically magnified by a focal reducer. For M43, you have the additional issue that the thick cover glass on your sensor really does bad stuff unless the focal reducer is designed to compensate for that (Metabones is, many are not).
What has been the general experience using focal reducers/converters? Is the quality price-related - quite possible, as these converters involve lens elements, unlike simple converters for manual lenses?

Should I have another go?
Check your lenses for field flatness first. If they're ok, it could be the cheap focal reducer was the problem.

Back at Electronic Imaging 2016, I published Mixing and matching sensor format with lens coverage , which included various tests using focal reducers. Generally, they work very well.
 
My experience has been disappointing, connecting Pentax K-mount manual lenses to M43. Anything outside dead centre was so soft as to be unusable. But then I did buy the cheapest I could find.
Could be the cheap adapter, but also could be field curvature. Field curvature that you barely notice for the base lens often is dramatically magnified by a focal reducer. For M43, you have the additional issue that the thick cover glass on your sensor really does bad stuff unless the focal reducer is designed to compensate for that (Metabones is, many are not).
What has been the general experience using focal reducers/converters? Is the quality price-related - quite possible, as these converters involve lens elements, unlike simple converters for manual lenses?

Should I have another go?
Check your lenses for field flatness first. If they're ok, it could be the cheap focal reducer was the problem.

Back at Electronic Imaging 2016, I published Mixing and matching sensor format with lens coverage , which included various tests using focal reducers. Generally, they work very well.
Reminds me from the time when focal reduction adapters were a much bigger "thing" on this forum. I thought that it was generally acknowledged that whilst they usually enhanced a lens performance by condensing it on to a small receiving space it could also make a lens with issues show these issues more obviously as well.
 
A bit late to the discussion, and my information is old, having used a Lens Turbo II on a Fuji X-T1 pre-2018. That combination got me into adapting Contax lenses. The results were pretty good for my style of photography (mostly wide open, corners are not a concern). It's possible that more resolution would bring out some flaws, but I never went beyond the 16MP of the X-T1.
My experience has been disappointing, connecting Pentax K-mount manual lenses to M43. Anything outside dead centre was so soft as to be unusable. But then I did buy the cheapest I could find.

What has been the general experience using focal reducers/converters? Is the quality price-related - quite possible, as these converters involve lens elements, unlike simple converters for manual lenses?

Should I have another go?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top